Raw is color space independent so it doesn't matter which color space you set your camera to. You select the color space you want when you convert your photograph. I personally prefer to use a wide color space such as ProPhoto.

What editor do you use? iPhoto doesn't have ProPhoto RGB setting. And I don't know what color space it uses automatically if it does when it converts RAW files. I know Adobe's LR automatically uses ProPhoto RGB color space to work in (I do have a copy of LR...not using it at the moment).

What editor do you use? iPhoto doesn't have ProPhoto RGB setting. And I don't know what color space it uses automatically if it does when it converts RAW files. I know Adobe's LR automatically uses ProPhoto RGB color space to work in (I do have a copy of LR...not using it at the moment).

You can select the color space of your choice in any raw converter, regardless of what the automatic settings might be. I personally use several raw converters but not iPhoto because it lacks many important features. Aperture is Apple pro-level raw converter. iPhoto is more souvenir/snapshot oriented. Since you have LR, use it. It's light years ahead of iPhoto!

You can select the color space of your choice in any raw converter, regardless of what the automatic settings might be. I personally use several raw converters but not iPhoto because it lacks many important features. Aperture is Apple pro-level raw converter. iPhoto is more souvenir/snapshot oriented. Since you have LR, use it. It's light years ahead of iPhoto!

I have Aperture 2 as well as LR. Only reason I don't have either loaded on my MacBook Pro is I'm running low on HD space. Will install LR on my new desktop compute when I get it early next year (or very late this year...about to sell my home..so no new toys till next yr..less to pack/ship). I'm just using iPhoto because it came with my MBP. I use it mainly as a browser.

WHen you shoot in RAW what color space setting do you leave your camera set in? sRGB? Adobe RGB? Do you ever shoot in Adobe RGB + JPG?

If you are using a wide gamut monitor I'm assuming you have to in Adobe RGB mode? Then calibrated with some colorimeter like a Colormunki Photo?

I had always just left it on sRGB. Now that I see what I'm missing in some photos, especially sunsets, I often have it on aRGB although I try to turn it back to sRGB for stuff that doesn't involve anything intense (which is actually more stuff than not).

Actually though I usually don't bother to pay too much attention unless for some reason I am shooting JPG only or for some reason care about the JPG quality even when I am shooting RAW.

I used to use jpg+RAW a lot since it was nice to have instant previews you could zoom into at 100% for super quick review right away and the old ACR profiles were poor and I didn't have the charts and stuff to make my own. Now the RAW has a large jpg embedded and do more custom profiles I'm starting to not bothering adding in the JPG as often.

I actually leave my monitor in native gamut and don't use the AdobeRGB preset (of course you must use an .ICC profile and color-managed apps then). The monitor doesn't quite cover all of AdobeRGB and yet at the same time it's gamut it noticeably larger than AdobeRGB so for color-managed editing it really makes no sense to use the AdobeRGB preset. I calibrated it with the SV II + calibrated NEC i1D2 (also tested with an i1Pro that gave extremely similar results). A non-Eizo, non-NEC wide gamut like the lower and mid-priced Dell and HP ones you'd need something like the colormunki or i1pro or hope to get a well calibrated Spyder3. I have photoshop set to 16bit per-channel ProPhotoRGB (it's a bit of a shame PPRGB uses gamma 1.8 since almost nobody sets their screens that way andit just adds another step for the CMS to have to convert across).

I had always just left it on sRGB. Now that I see what I'm missing in some photos, especially sunsets, I often have it on aRGB although I try to turn it back to sRGB for stuff that doesn't involve anything intense (which is actually more stuff than not).

Actually though I usually don't bother to pay too much attention unless for some reason I am shooting JPG only or for some reason care about the JPG quality even when I am shooting RAW.

I actually leave my monitor in native gamut and don't use the AdobeRGB preset (of course you must use an .ICC profile and color-managed apps then). The monitor doesn't quite cover all of AdobeRGB and yet at the same time it's gamut it noticeably larger than AdobeRGB so for color-managed editing it really makes no sense to use the AdobeRGB preset. I calibrated it with the SV II + calibrated NEC i1D2 (also tested with an i1Pro that gave extremely similar results). A non-Eizo, non-NEC wide gamut like the lower and mid-priced Dell and HP ones you'd need something like the colormunki or i1pro or hope to get a well calibrated Spyder3. I have photoshop set to 16bit per-channel ProPhotoRGB (it's a bit of a shame PPRGB uses gamma 1.8 since almost nobody sets their screens that way andit just adds another step for the CMS to have to convert across).

I am leaving my camera set to aRGB. Since I'm shooting mainly in JPG anyway right now. That and I read that there really isn't much difference in image quality between JPG and RAW. Difference is RAW contains a lot more data (depending on the compression mode used) so if you like to do a lot of color post processing...

All wide gamut monitors have a "native gamut mode"? I assumed people would choose to use the aRGB preset. Why have it if people aren't using it? Or for that matter...why sRGB?

As for colorimeters...I'll likely pickup a Colormunki Photo ($540.00 CAD). Was looking at the Spyder 3 but read some reviews. Said the results were negligibly better. i1 Extreme ($1800.00 CAD...calibrates multiple devices like the Colormunki Photo) is terrific but overkill for any one not running a processing lab or some graphic arts business.

I am leaving my camera set to aRGB. Since I'm shooting mainly in JPG anyway right now. That and I read that there really isn't much difference in image quality between JPG and RAW. Difference is RAW contains a lot more data (depending on the compression mode used) so if you like to do a lot of color post processing...

All wide gamut monitors have a "native gamut mode"? I assumed people would choose to use the aRGB preset. Why have it if people aren't using it? Or for that matter...why sRGB?

As for colorimeters...I'll likely pickup a Colormunki Photo ($540.00 CAD). Was looking at the Spyder 3 but read some reviews. Said the results were negligibly better. i1 Extreme ($1800.00 CAD...calibrates multiple devices like the Colormunki Photo) is terrific but overkill for any one not running a processing lab or some graphic arts business.

Every monitor has to have a native gamut by definition, that's what the monitors lighting plus filters/phosphors/etc. put out, it does what it does.

There is no sense in using anything other than native gamut in a color-managed program since that gives you all it can do and nothing more (not possible) and nothing less (not desirable). Many people do change the native white point and native gamma but the gamut should certainly be used native.

Some people have no calibration tool and don't want to buy anything more so if they put it in AdobeRGB mode then it's already pre-calibrated to that (to better or worser degrees depending upon the monitor) and then any program will work fine. Without a calibration tool and software even color-managed stuff will fail.

sRGB emulation modes are very important for those who ever want to do anything beyond photo editing and viewing. Games, blu-ray and DVD player software, tv tuner card software, the pc desktop, none of that stuff is color-managed and it will all look nasty on a wide gamut monitor unless it has a good sRGB emulation mode. If for some reason you MUST use IE and not something nice and color-managed like Firefox, then you need sRGB emulation mode for that too.

yeah the i1Pro is expensive at around $800ish (i1 extreme at $1800 sounds like some fancier package, for a monitor all you'd need is the i1Basic which includes the i1Pro but even still it's $800, not cheap as I said)

Before you rush into a colormunki though, first see what monitor you get, if it turns out to be an Eizo or NEC you might actually get results as good or better using their custom calibrated i1D2 or DTP94b pucks than with the colormunki for only $199.

RAW is nice since if you mess up the white balance you can change it later, although Nikons have in camera chromatic aberration removal, Canon cameras do not yet and shooting RAW you can remove that later and with some lenses it can radically improve image quality, you can also do a LOT more with the exposure and bringing out detail in shadows and taming highlights that might look blown on JPG. etc.

Every monitor has to have a native gamut by definition, that's what the monitors lighting plus filters/phosphors/etc. put out, it does what it does.

There is no sense in using anything other than native gamut in a color-managed program since that gives you all it can do and nothing more (not possible) and nothing less (not desirable). Many people do change the native white point and native gamma but the gamut should certainly be used native.

Some people have no calibration tool and don't want to buy anything more so if they put it in AdobeRGB mode then it's already pre-calibrated to that (to better or worser degrees depending upon the monitor) and then any program will work fine. Without a calibration tool and software even color-managed stuff will fail.

sRGB emulation modes are very important for those who ever want to do anything beyond photo editing and viewing. Games, blu-ray and DVD player software, tv tuner card software, the pc desktop, none of that stuff is color-managed and it will all look nasty on a wide gamut monitor unless it has a good sRGB emulation mode. If for some reason you MUST use IE and not something nice and color-managed like Firefox, then you need sRGB emulation mode for that too.

yeah the i1Pro is expensive at around $800ish (i1 extreme at $1800 sounds like some fancier package, for a monitor all you'd need is the i1Basic which includes the i1Pro but even still it's $800, not cheap as I said)

Before you rush into a colormunki though, first see what monitor you get, if it turns out to be an Eizo or NEC you might actually get results as good or better using their custom calibrated i1D2 or DTP94b pucks than with the colormunki for only $199.

RAW is nice since if you mess up the white balance you can change it later, although Nikons have in camera chromatic aberration removal, Canon cameras do not yet and shooting RAW you can remove that later and with some lenses it can radically improve image quality, you can also do a LOT more with the exposure and bringing out detail in shadows and taming highlights that might look blown on JPG. etc.

Ok. Good to know about native mode and sRGB mode.

As for colorimeters...I would want one that could not only calibrate my new monitor but also my printer. As that has to be calibrated too. So while the i1D2 might be good or better than the Colormunki Photo for less it might be only good for one use. The i1 Extreme calibrates your digital camera, wide gamut monitor, photo printer, projector...etc. But as I said...for $1800.00 CAD?? I don't think so. Not for me. Till (if) I make my living as a photographer or own a developing business could I justify the cost.

As for colorimeters...I would want one that could not only calibrate my new monitor but also my printer. As that has to be calibrated too. So while the i1D2 might be good or better than the Colormunki Photo for less it might be only good for one use. The i1 Extreme calibrates your digital camera, wide gamut monitor, photo printer, projector...etc. But as I said...for $1800.00 CAD?? I don't think so. Not for me. Till (if) I make my living as a photographer or own a developing business could I justify the cost.

well i think you can get the printer module for $100 or something but yeah it's still like around $1000 total, quite a lot

I am leaving my camera set to aRGB. Since I'm shooting mainly in JPG anyway right now.

Although strictly speaking, for regular scenes without sunset/flowery/tropical ocean/etc. colors, which probably accounts for more photos than not, sRGB works a tiny bit better since it doesn't waste so much of the limited 8bit per channel jpg format on colors not even used anyway but it's probably fine to just leave it on AdobeRGB though instead of bothering to switch back and forth.

That was so helpful - thank you - I've always been concerned about the screen's brightness and now you've given me two tips - to use Colormonki and turn the brightness down by 50%. I do a lot of wedding photography editing and the imac sounds like a good and affordable(ish!) workstation for it.